Creation Theory Argument

Discussion in 'The War Zone' started by Waffle, Jun 8, 2005.

  1. Waffle

    Waffle Alpha Geek

    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm putting it in the War Zone as it *may* offend any chrisitians/start a war. But I doubt it. (Although it wouldn't be the first war christianity started *cough*crusades*cough*).

    My point.

    I'm not a religious person, and believe in the logical rational explanation of the big bang theory.

    Now for all those christians, who go by "god created the earth in 7 days" and other bull, I raise you several interesting points.

    --------------
    God created light on the first day, and so forth. Correct?

    Where are the dinosaurs?

    No where in the bible does it mention dinosaurs, or mammoths, or anything else we know existed, from extensive fossil findings and carbon dating.

    --------------
    If God created Adam & Eve, surely they'd have had children, as normal couples would do, as they were the first, and presumably only humans God created. Therefore, a little time passes, and all of a sudden more people start emerging, having families, and getting all civilised.

    my point, either god created more people, but the bible doesn't mention this, or...the more horrifying truth.

    Adam + Eve = Adam junior + Eve junior.

    Shit. No more people on earth.
    Adam + Eve die.
    Shit. Now what.

    Adam junior + Eve Junior = Adam Junior Junior..and so on.

    Therefore.

    We, as a human race, just like every other species.

    are inbred.

    Which means, incestual activities occured, which I'm pretty sure isn't looked too highly upon in the bible...hm...

    So we have a religion, enforcing the idea of 'normal' sexual relationships, but every member of this religion, are in fact all from the same mother and father. Therefore - incest has occured.

    ------------------------
    You say God created the universe. What created god?

    Surely there needed to be a creator of 'the creator'. Who was that? was it the universe? therefore god didn't create the universe, merely sculpting it.

    --------------------------------

    My points have just disproved the christian faith and all of its teachings. any christians here, feel free to correct me, but I think you'll find my evidence backs up my claims.

    Whereas, well, you have no evidence to your claims.


    (I posted this because I had a heated discussion today with my old RS teacher, my point being religion is pointless, hers being that it wasnt and we are all brothers in the kingdom of god. I had to say something.)


    Comments?
     
  2. Addis

    Addis The King

    Likes Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    48
    This is one of my favourite debates. Myself like you am not religious, apart from the odd Taoism but mostly I'm an atheist.

    I would agree with your points; but perhaps by chance that the bible, as with many other teachings isn't literal. Who knows, the bible in itself may just be a whole bunch of stories to enforce their idea of good morales among the followers, like little anecdotes. Remember that religous people aren't stupid, maybe a lot of followers don't take it literally but see it as a book of teachings that are meant to guide, not to dictate.

    For god to have created the world and human is totally illogical to me. As is a lot of other things in the bible. Agree with your arguments against the Adam and Eve theory. Myself, I'm all for the scientific theory, makes sense and is widely accepted.

    One thing that does seem to illude my understanding is that before the Big Bang, there was no space-time at all. In fact there was no vacuums of space or "time" at all. Strange universe this is. Hey, maybe not universe, but multiverse!

    Edit: But as a great physicist once said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind".
     
  3. Anti-Trend

    Anti-Trend Nonconformist Geek

    Likes Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I'm not offended in the slightest, but I would like to address your points, one at a time. I'll take this as your first, and address it as such.

    It's every bit as unfair to treat the crusades as a reflection of Christianity as it is to say that the actions of Afghanistan are the actions of the entire Arab people. In fact, the Roman government (the same one from which the Catholic church is derived) tortured and killed Christians on an unpresidented scale for hundreds of years. Later, they took a "if you can't beat 'em, absorb 'em" stance and set up a theo-political monarchy. They blended their old pagan traditions and superstitions with Christian teachings, hence the confusion about Christmas, Easter, etc (bunnies? eggs? A fertility holiday!) Using a phrase they coined themselves (not a Christian term), Pope, they established unpresidented control over the masses, much in the same way of the Caesars before them. The Pope has more or less absolute power, and was considered to be infallible (i.e. anything he said was claimed to be on par with God himself; a living mouthpiece of God -- like a Caesar, who was considered to be a theophany on Earth). Convenient? In addition, "Christians" of the time of the crusades couldn't even read the Bible to understand that its teachings are in fact contrary to what they were being commanded to do, since it was forbidden to translate the bible from Latin into a common tongue! As a result, both the crusaders and countless Arab peoples suffered greatly to benefit a few wealthy and powerful individuals. Some things never change.
    Would you mind explaining to me how, "In the beginning, there was this ball of mass or something. Then it exploded for some unknown reason and spread out unevenly for some other unknown reason and *poof!* there was the universe" is either logical or rational? I'm all ears, so to speak. I've worked directly with JPL and NASA, had direct contact with many world renowned scientists and engineers, and still haven't gotten a straight answer on this one, so maybe you can do better? Thanks.
    Actually, the bible does mention dinosaurs on a few occasions, and in relatively unexcited terms so as to give one the impression that it wasn't too unusual a circumstance to see one. Take a look at the book of Job, look for "behemoth". Keep in mind that the term 'dinosaur' simply means "Terrible Lizard". Besides this, the Bible actually gives a logical explanation for their extinction: Noah's flood. Keep in mind that every culture in the world has a flood story tradition, even Native Americans and remote African tribes. Interesting.

    You mention the fossil record, but contrary to popular belief that is something that doesn't jive well at all with evolution. Think logically with me here. Where is the fossil records of millions of years of gradual evolution? We should be able to show through millions of years of fossils clearly defined intermediary species, e.g. a cross between a cow and a whale, or a tree shrew and a chimp. Where are they? Even if they all died out, there should be a very strong fossil record to that effect. In fact, we have no bones of *any* intermediary species, which is what gave rise to the theory of spontaneous generation. In other words, many evolutionary scientists believe that one animal must have have spontaneously given birth to a totally different type of animal altogether. This raises some rather fundamental questions of its own, but I'll leave that for another discussion.
    Good one, you've caught something that most Christians don't realize (or don't want to address, anyway). However, let's tackle this head-on using simple logic (logic is the only tool we have in this big universe! :)). If God created Adam and Eve as perfect beings, with no flaws (the flaws were introduced by Adam and Eve themselves, if you recall the story), wouldn't their DNA be perfect? And if their double-helices contained no gaps or defects like our DNA does, what would the ramifications be on reproduction? People would be able to inbreed for many, many generations before notable defects would be introduced. There is actually a basis for this in the bible, as there's a specific point in time when God tells the people not to inbreed any more (e.g. the second cousin rule). This makes sense for the same reason that cross-breeding between races generally produces healthier, more attractive people (contrary to what Hitler believed). The reason for this is that when you have significantly different DNA patterns, the chances that both sets of genes will have exactly the same sets of defects is slim.

    OK, I fail to see the logic behind your question. Since you so wholeheartedly believe in the big bang, let's reverse your question on you. Where did the cosmic egg (the matter core in the big bang theory) come from? Did a cosmic chicken lay it? Come on now. Christians believe that God is that something "outside of the box", that being, that existence that supersedes everything else. Asking who created God is moot.
    Wow, come on man, that was arrogant. Let me explain (without conceit, it's just a fact) that I have studied every major religion and many lesser-knowns. Despite this, there's still soooo~ much I don't know that I'll probably never have time to learn in my short lifespan. Even so, I've come to the conclusion that every religion except for Christianity wants to make man into God somehow. They offer the promise of Godhood -- of power, control, and a state of being above all reproach. In my mind, evolution is in fact a religion, and not even an especially good one if we're grading on a curve. I hope that with my few points here I've made the argument that there is little (if any) real scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution. In fact, it's in blatant opposition to the second law of thermodynamics! This basically boils down to the fact that things left to their own devices tend to wind down, they don't build up. If you leave a tin can out in the wilderness exposed to the elements, will it somehow become something more noble given enough time? Doubtful, unless you consider a pile of rust a step up in the life cycle of the can. My point here is that it takes effort to maintain, let alone improve. Even the simplest organic life is more complex than a super computer, and yet it happened by accident and against the very laws of physics? Which takes more faith, to believe that, or in an omnipotent being who created by design?

    -AT
     
  4. Big B

    Big B HWF Godfather

    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    63
    AT did an outstanding run-down. I'd also like to point out the "theory" in both Creationism and Evolution. Theroies are more or less ideas or concepts that have strong evidence supporting them, but simply haven't been proven.
     
  5. ThePenguinCometh

    ThePenguinCometh There is no escape

    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My God, you ARE looking for trouble!

    OK, to make it clear from the outset I was raised as a Catholic but was never really into the faith. I do not therefore consider myself a Catholic or a Christian for that matter but I do respect the role of religion in general. Nearly every religion that has ever risen to any kind of power did so because it provided a calming, civilising influence and gave people a direction in life. It was only when people who were clinically insane got into positions of power in that religion that whatever religion it was that they were part of got a bad name for itself. This is true of pretty much every major modern religion that I know of. For me the rigid belief structure of any of the major religions does not work for me so I do not follow any of these. With that in mind I have a few comments to make about your posting.

    First of all, you have not actually read the Bible, sure you may know the popular version of the stories, or have read watered-down versions of it but consider this: much of the Bible was originally written in Sanskrit, an ancient, dead language that was usually written in code that had to be interpreted by the reader. This text (most of which is long-lost) was then translated from a coded language into either ancient Greek or Latin, both also now dead. Then they were translated into Middle English, also dead, before finally being translated into modern English. This is a very simplified version of how the Bible stories came into their present form, the possibilities for alteration, embellishment, censorship, hyperbole, etc, etc, etc, is virtually infinite. And as the originals have not been around for millenia we don't really know what the original story was, with the result that there are probably hundreds of religions and sects based on varying interpretations of the same book. The end result is probably a pale imitation of what really went on.

    Even so I would advise you to read it. No really, forget everything you know about the history of Christianity or what stories you been told about it or what your parents/priest/schoolteacher told you it means and read it for what it actually is - an ancient history book, I'll think you'll find some very interesting stuff in there.

    First example:

    Take this passage from the King James version:

    Per the mainstream scientific theory life began in the seas and then the sea-dwelling creatures came out of the water and onto dry land. But isn't this what the above passage actually says? The waters brought forth life and the land-dwelling creatures and birds came from that. Of course we are told it took a day to do so but the question is what exactly is a day for an all-powerful God? Maybe (and remember just how altered this story probably is from the original) a "day" for whatever God is could be an entire Epoch for a human, so I don't necessarily see that the Genesis story is inconsistent with scientific theory.

    Next point:

    Again read the Bible, don't just listen to the stories, it gets very interesting on this point. Take the following few passages:

    Note:- God created man, male and female and let them have dominion...

    Later on we read:

    The first point is that it says that there was not a man to till the earth. Really? We were just told that God created men and women on the sixth day but now there is no man to till the earth? I don't remember where I read it from so I'm taking this from memory but I read one theory that the term "tiller of the earth" is an ambiguity in sanskrit which could mean farmer, which is how it is interpreted, or it could mean something like "King." The first definition does not make sense as we have been told them men were created, the second does however if you regard the Bible as a history book and are willing to forget the fixed ideas about it. Per this interpretation Adam was not the first man but a "Son of God" sent down to Earth to be a ruler over men! Wild theory yes but it is consistent with what the Bible actually says.

    Let's read further:

    [/quote]

    Cain knew his wife? What wife? Up to this point there was only Cain and Abel so where did this wife come from? Did Cain marry his sister or did he, as a Royal Prince, take a human female for a bride?

    Sorry, I don't think cavemen lived for hundreds of years but somehow the sons of Adam did.

    Ask your local priest to explain that passage! The sons of God and the daughters of men? And who were the giants that came in unto the daughters of men and bore children to them? Seems to me that there is more going on here than we are led to believe.

    Alright, where does that leave the official, popular story. Well, nowhere really. As you said the official story is full of inconsistencies. If it were true then the sons of Adam were copping off with their sisters which would be a terrible sin per the modern Christian faith. However if we take the view that Adam was a sort of King, not a human one, but a creature that could live for eight hundred years and had sons that also had incredible longevity then the story actually makes sense. God created man, then he created Adam to rule over man. He had sons who took human women for wives and they acted as a sort of Royal Family or a Panatheon of Gods/Super-Humans, this sort of idea would of course be complete heresy to a truly devout Christian and would probably get me burned at the stake were I to have such ideas a few hundred years ago but it is consistent with what is actually written in the very book that they claim to follow. There is a lot more to this but my advice to you is to actually take up a Bible and read it with the viewpoint I mentioned above. I honestly don't know what happens in the mind of some people when they read the sort of things I've quoted above and can only assume they have some automatic filter that rejects passages that are not consistent with their preconcieved notions of the Bible but there are huge gaps between the words and the interpretations.

    Of course, all of the above will probably earn me several weeks worth of hate-mail. Oh well, life was getting rather boring anyway!
     
  6. Waffle

    Waffle Alpha Geek

    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    that was a damn good read, at :)


    My 'cosmic egg', from the 'cosmic chicken' (great idea btw, thinking of terry pratchett novels), would be Anti-Matter, which is a whole other discussion, I think.

    ""In the beginning, there was this ball of mass or something. Then it exploded for some unknown reason and spread out unevenly for some other unknown reason and *poof!* there was the universe" is either logical or rational?"

    good come back..didn't think of that :x:. I'll get back to you with that one.


    The noahs ark explanation for the dinosaurs extinction. Plausible, but god was supposed to have told noah to take on board two of every creature, so he would have to have taken on board dinosaurs, which would then have bred in the new world, and would still be here today, or certainly not as old as they were predicted to be. (as dinosaurs are, they inevitably would have eaten everything on the arc anyway)

    I'm assuming you meant that by "the rambications of reproduction.." (having never heard that word before), that there would be no moral crisis as the offspring would be the perfect human being? (I may have misinterpretted it, which is likely), in which case we are therefore clones of each other, which is asexual reproduction as far as i know.

    And if the genes were perfect, then there would never be any deformities, or mutations. And so we would all be 'perfect', but we are not - thousands suffer with disabilities, and if my knowledge as to how syndromes such as cystic fybrosis are passed on - with at least one parent being a carrier/sufferer, if we all originated from the same people, adam and eve must have had these defective genes, be it recessive or dominant, in which case they weren't the perfect human beings, as god intended.

    And yeh, re-reading my closing statement, it was brash and stupid, looking back. scratch that last remark.
     
  7. Fred

    Fred Moderator

    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I agree.. Nice job, AT! And I have to agree with B quite a bit also. Although I do believe in creation, the fact is that the only way we can completely be sure is in the end (The end meaning - either our own personal end or the end of the world). And the thing is... even if I'm wrong - SO WHAT?! It just means I lived life possibly more carefully and with higher values [more than likely] and ended up dying like everyone else. On the other hand, if you live life as if there is no creator (God, Budda, or otherwise), you have the chance of ending up in some sort of uncomfortable circumstance for all of eternity... I choose the first one. :p
     
  8. Waffle

    Waffle Alpha Geek

    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    More contradictions in the bible...

    "And God said, Let there be light" (Gen. 1:3) and "...And the evening and the morning were the first day" (Gen. 1:5).

    versus

    "And God said, 'Let there be light in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night.... ' "And God made two lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.... And the evening and morning were the fourth day" (Gen. 1:14-19).



    God created light on the first day; yet there were no moon, sun or stars until the fourth day - thats in the bible, no?


    how could it be known when the first three days ended if there was no sun until the fourth day?


    How could morning be distinguished from evening, if the sun and the moon were yet to be created?

    ...................

    this is being very 'nit picky', but the bible is inconsistent with itself..especilly when you think, its been written by other 40 different authors at least (information unconfirmed), translated countless times..

    and wasn't jesus a black jewish person, not a white christian as he is portrayed to be?

    --------------------------

    And the part about noah and the 40 day flood, that covered the whole world?

    where did all the water go.

    water cannot be destroyed, nor created (well im sure it probably can nowadays), there is as much water now as there always was, at the start of the universe.
     
  9. ninja fetus

    ninja fetus I'm a thugged out gangsta

    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    very good post AT. You'd get a helpful point but I'm not seeing a link :confused:?

    I have heard of some theory the bibly was created to set morals, values and what not to future generations and to give them hope. Stuff like that, anyone know what it's called?
     
  10. Nic

    Nic Sleepy Head

    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Holy monkey I like these arguments but I got to say I still agree with waffles and Addis.
     
  11. Anti-Trend

    Anti-Trend Nonconformist Geek

    Likes Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Thanks. :)

    I don't see how that makes any difference in respect to our discussion, but I assumed it was understood you were talking about anti-matter. Either way, what we're discussing at its rudaments is that for some reason there existed time, space, and a dense ball of energy suspended in space. For some reason it exploded, and in a move that defies physics, decided to cling together in place (i.e. galaxies) rather than spreading out in a thin mist. Come on, if you judge this theory on its purely scientific merits it falls quite flat. I believe it's a philisophical belief more than a scientific one. Something along the lines of "I don't want to have to believe in God, because that makes me accountable for my actions (which aren't good). Therefore, even though it doesn't make any kind of sense, there must have been some kind of event besides creation in which the world was created, and this one is as good as any." Why not just call it what it is? It's psudo-science.

    Alright, think about this. Remember earlier I said the world Dinosaur was just another word for "big lizard"? Well, it's true. Lizards, like fish, will grow as large as their environment allows for. Who's to say the 'dinosaurs' they took with them on the ark weren't very small 'lizards'? To put it another way: why take the big ones when you can take the small ones?

    Ramifications is a fancy word for 'results' or 'consequences'. You're making a big assumption here. You're taking for granted that incest was for some reason morally wrong at that period of time. In fact, every real moral code is there for a reason and accomplishes some purpose. While even voluntary incest is certainly very wrong in this day & age, and it makes me cringe just to think of it, but what made it bad back then?

    OK, you're demonstrating a clear lack of understanding of genetic biology. Additionally, think about this in the terms of the second law of thermodynamics, or the law of entropy as it's sometimes called. If things naturally degrade, even though their (Adam and Eve's) genes were arguably perfect they couldn't go on inbreeding forever, although it would be OK for quite a while with no genetic consequences. Like it or not, this same principle applies to evolutionary thinking as well. Since inbreeding makes genetic flaws, how could evolution be possible?
     
  12. Waffle

    Waffle Alpha Geek

    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're intelligence and level of understanding clearly surpasses mine, which is to be expected :)

    I'll rethink my ideas, and post em back - but you truly raised some excellent comebacks for my above points.
     
  13. Anti-Trend

    Anti-Trend Nonconformist Geek

    Likes Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Thanks for the compliments Waffle, but I'm afraid you're putting me on a very slippery pedestal. I'm no smarter than you, I'm just better equipped with information at this point in time because I've researched all this since I was a child. In fact, you haven't raised a single question I haven't already tackled years ago. It seems to me that in order to know where one is going in life, you must know where you came from. The inception of humanity seems like a good place to start.

    -AT
     
  14. Waffle

    Waffle Alpha Geek

    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    good point.

    well. hopefully we'll still be regulars here in a few years time, and i'll think of something that will really make you think :)

    wow, debates like this are so much more fun than anything else.

    might start another one sometime, conspiracy theories, anyone?
     
  15. ninja fetus

    ninja fetus I'm a thugged out gangsta

    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    conspiracy theories are fun. Remember, as your only 16 your frontal cortex of your brain isn't fully developed. over time your reasoning, thinking, goal formation and planning will change between now and when your 21 it's nearly matured.
     
  16. ThePenguinCometh

    ThePenguinCometh There is no escape

    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There are two separate ideas encompassed by the term evolution: there's the principle of evolution and then there's Darwin's theory of evolution.

    The principle of evolution is the idea that things tend towards greater order, or become better over time. This principle is evident everywhere from the advancement of civilisations to the building of a house to the development of a computer program. In each case there is a sentient guiding force overseeing things (whether it's a politician, a foreman or a lead programmer) and having in mind where the system in question is going. There are some theories that there is no true evolution and that entropy rules over all but I do not agree with this. Rather I consider that evolution and entropy are the antithesis of each other and the two are constantly working against each other. Entropy is a law of the physical universe, things decay, breakdown, disintegrate, energy gets lost, matter dissipates, etc. Evolution is what life does. Someone sees a run-down old house and wants a cleaner one so he goes in and reverses the work of entropy, he tidies it up, repairs the ceiling, paints the walls, etc. The house will evolve through several stages of evolution from unkempt to under construction to liveable to comfortable to luxury. All the while there is a guiding force with a clear idea in mind what he wants to achieve who works in direct opposotion to entropy to achieve his aims. Pure matter does not and cannot do evolution, only life itself.

    The theory of evolution however is the idea that all life-forms evolved from single-celled algae through several gradiated steps to the higher life-forms that exist today, most commonly thought of as the idea that humans evolved from apes. However for those who "believe" this theory I would like you to consider the following points:

    Apes generally have lots of hair on their backs, little on the chest, male humans have the reverse. The hair on the apes back help to protect the ape from the sunlight, human chest hair serves no such function and in fact they are very vulnerable to direct sunlight on thier hairless backs.

    Apes head hair and fingernails grow to a certain length and then stops, humans head hair and fingernails grow indefinitely and need to be trimmed regularly.

    Apes skin is designed so that when the ape recieves a wound the cut will actually be pressed closed thus facilitating the rapid recovery of the ape from the wound, the structure of human fat means that when the skin is cut the fat will press up and open the wound more, making recovery more difficult.

    Apes and primates in general, pound for pound, are much stronger than humans.

    Genetic defects among apes is quite rare, they exist but there is not a lot of them. Humans have many thousands of known genetic defects.

    There are several other points that I can't recall right now but per this evolution somehow made humans worse! How is that possible per classical Darwinian theory? The number of holes in Darwins evolution makes the whole subject risible. Don't even get me started on the eye or the cheetah! Evolution as a principle in incontrovertible but Darwin was way off the mark.


    Oh, yes please! Just make sure you've done your homework before you start anything. :)
     
  17. Anti-Trend

    Anti-Trend Nonconformist Geek

    Likes Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Looks like I missed this post, I'll address this one too.
    In the Hebrew, which definately doesn't come across well in the English translation you're reading from, paints a different picture. The word for day in Hebrew literally means "an expanse of time", so while you're right about the discrepancy, it's an English misnomer.

    Actually, we have originals, you may have heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Those are some of them. Also, the Torah has to be copied in such a maticulous way that mistakes are just about impossible. Anyway, the amazing thing is not that the Bible was written by 40 individuals over a few thousand years. It's that it was written by 40 individuals over thousands of years and has a cohesive message and theme. Highly unusual.

    Also, there's a matter I hesitate to bring up because it sounds weird, but I will present it simply as food for thought. Many Jewish scholars believe in a set of heavy cryptology throughout the Torah (or Pentatuch, the first 5 books of the Bible) that is both puzzling and incredible. It seems there are complicated mathmatical cryptograms in the Torah that not only give interesting information about the context in which they can be found, but are mathmatically impossible for people to reproduce. It would literally take a supercomputer to encrypt something on that kind of scale, and it's obviously an ancient manuscript. Again, sounds weird, but search for Torah codes or Bible codes on google and you'll get some suprising info from some super-famous mathmaticians (and some crackpot info from tinfoil-hat-wearing weirdos, which is why I hesitated to bring it up in the first place).

    No, he was a middle-eastern Jew. Where in the Bible does it say he's white? Europeans tend to make Jesus look like the fabled Arians (who are literally a myth, by the way). This is a tradition that is not derived from either scripture or church history, so while it is certainly false it doesn't help your case. As for Christ being a Christian, I'd say no he wasn't that either, since Christian means "follower of Christ" (or more appropriately "follower of the Messiah"), and he was the Christ, so....

    The appropriate question would be, "Where did all the water come from?" I don't claim to know the answer for a fact, but I do have my theories. Some scientists believe in a thick water halo that surrounded the Earth before the flood. This would explain the paradise on Earth called Eden, and the fact that people lived so stinking long back then (according to the Bible, a few thousand years wasn't unheard of). You'd have some very pure air to breath, mostly oxygen, and plants and animals alike would be incredibly healthy. Not to mention that if that was true, you'd be filtered completely from harmful radiation such as UVs. It'd be like a super greenhouse where everything got really big and lived a really long time. Now if we take that into account, it isn't a huge stretch to speculate that perhaps the water dome fell, which accounts for 40 days of rain. If the Earth was mostly land at that time and not as much water (e.g. Pangea), there'd be plenty of room for the water to go (e.g. polar ice caps, for one thing). Genesis also says that "the wells of the deep opened up", and water came from below as well as above. There would have been some serious unrest on our little blue planet, like the splitting of Pangea into many smaller land masses.

    Anyway, like I said it's just theory, I don't have anything but a lot of circumstantial evidence to back it up. But it seems to fit, and it would explain a lot. Like for instance, "why the heck are there fish bones in the desert?" and "how did lizards grow so big back then?"

    -AT
     
  18. LevitySlickt

    LevitySlickt Geek Trainee

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hey everyone - I'm the newest of the 'new guys' to Hardware Forums, so I thought - "What better way to introduce myself than to jump right into the middle of one of those conversations that makes people want to kill each other??" :p

    So, to start:

    Yay, TPC!

    While I do agree entirely with your view on the Darwinian Evolutionary theory, I can't help but stand resolute in the notion that to call most *anything* "incontrovertable," let alone something like evolution, which is commonly known to be a "theory," is erroneous. However, I once again find myself in complete agreement: Yes, please - In any respect, whether online or in person - please, please, always research and know what you're talking about before you throw out ungrounded conjectures and theories. (Not to say that the previously argued points were ungrounded - however, they certainly could have had a much more solid grounding with a bit of good, old fashioned research!)

    Fred! I find that I agree with you completely (and yes, to end the suspense, I do believe in Creation over the Big Bang and Evolution, even though some like to mix those theories, I'm not into the salad-bar-theory idea... They seem complicated enough as it is without mixing them around.) To throw out a quote and further explain Fred's standpoint, I offer Frank Lewis Marsh:

    "To some it seems of little moment whether we accept evolution or creation. However, a little further thought into the subject shows us that extremely vital matters are involved. If the evolutionary philosophy is correct, man has battled his way upward through slimy, scaly, and hairy brutes, and arrived at his present exalted station carrying more or less of his bestial inheritance with him, yet deserving high praise for his worthy achievements and of indulgent excuse when he relapses into animal ways. In the light of his past he has done a good job.
    "On the other hand, if the creationistic philosophy is correct, "the genealogy of our race . . . traces back its origin, not to a line of developing germs, mollusks, and quadrupeds, but to the great Creator. Though formed from the dust, Adam was 'the son of God.' " Some have said in essence that they would rather be an exalted ape than a fallen man, but in this choice they overlook the fact that Christ did not die to redeem a noble beast, but rather, to make possible the reinstatement of the fallen members of God's family. There can be a redemption only of that which has been forfeited.
    "For an evolved man there is no hope of escaping the chains of his bestial ancestors. His future attainments will, by the nature of his past, of necessity be limited. But before every fallen man who repents and accepts the proffered redemption shines the most radiant hope of complete reinstatement in the household of God. The facts of Genesis not only find complete harmony with the facts of nature, they also penetrate and explain the mysteries of the future."

    When it comes down to it, and the stalemate (due to a simple lack of complete knowledge for either argument) between Christianity and Atheism is drawn, I choose Christianity, if not simply for the fact that, as Fred hinted at: For *me* - I know I can go to bed at night with a clear conscience; And that if I were to not wake up - I wouldn't have any regrets. :good:

    I do think it's hilariously funny though, (Waffle) when arguing through some topic like Evolution Vs. Creation - that it is almost inevitable that *someone* will, at some point, declair that they have just entirely disproved the opposing theory! -Well done! -You ought to let all those professional apologists and theologians, etc. know that their jobs are done! Really! - To apparently have come up with a singularly unique viewpoint from which all arguments are crystal clear and easily explained... It's... It's... Revolutionary! You will be the next Aristotle! :eek:
    I'm only teasing... But really, let's keep in mind that this has been an article of discussion for *hundreds of years* - and that we are not out to disprove anything here, between we simple laymen. All we can hope to do is share our various viewpoints without any assumptuous or self-righteous airs and hope we're understood - and especially to listen to others viewpoints and to hope to come to an understanding about them!


    To lighten the mood, however, I will throw out one little anecdote:
    I believe, through logic, I know which came first... The Chicken, or the Egg?
    If you are approaching this question from the viewpoint of a Christian or Creationist, then you must believe that "God created" all the animals. However, it is stated that God created the finished products, correct? (IE: God created horses and cats and birds, as opposed to ponies, kittens, and chicks) Hence, according to Christianity or Creationism: The chicken came first.

    Now, if you approach it from the standing of an evolutionist, then naturally, each animal that has come into being is (as I understand it) the next generation of a previous sort of animal. That is, before the chicken, was an entirely different sort of bird. HENCE: Before the chicken was some other animal entirely, and only from the EGG which was layed by this other creature did the chicken come. (IE: The egg came first, according to evolution) Opinions? Anyone agree/disagree?


    That's all I'll say - This post is long enough as it is, and I don't want to be ostracized after my very first post! :x:
     
  19. Nic

    Nic Sleepy Head

    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Only thing Id say is about the chicken from evolutionary period would have come from the the chicken becuase it would of evolved from anomeba (or how ever its spelt)and then layed an egg.
     
  20. LevitySlickt

    LevitySlickt Geek Trainee

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think I see what you're saying - but my point is - the first chicken would've technically started as an egg, because before that it was a different sort of bird - chicken-like, sure; however, *not* chicken... Right? -Unless you're saying the jump was straight from ameoba to chicken, in which case... Where can I read about *that* theory of evolution?! :chk:
    Also, what is the general consensus on just when exactly the evolutionary jump took place from chicken breast, to chicken *nugget*??
     

Share This Page